Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. You'll receive an email shortly with a link to create a new password. If you have trouble finding this email, please check your spam folder.

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

To access our archive, please log in or register now and read two articles from our archive every month for free. For unlimited access to our archive, as well as to the unrivaled analysis of PS On Point, subscribe now.

Jan 27, 2017Project Syndicate
In his first week in office, US President Donald Trump has begun wreaking havoc on the post-1945 world. Joschka Fischer, Nina Khrushcheva, Joseph Nye, and other Project Syndicate contributors navigate the emerging international disorder.

If his cabinet appointees were not being attacked and his Cabinet appointee's could build their teams and the remnants of the Liberal left still trying to thwart him could be held up to the light, I think his Tweets would become accurate and effective, his policy (which he was elected for ) could begin to be implemented and the leakers could be found and prosecuted. Blaming International incidents on his tweets is one thing but to interpret them the way the Liberal Press does is more damaging than the tweets.

I wonder if Professor Mandelbaum considers Donald Trump's attacks on the judiciary just one of those "missteps that occur early in a presidency?" Or does it indicate a general disrespect for our democratic institutions and the rule of law?

I wonder if Professor Mandelbaum counts Steven Bannon one of those confidence-inspiring forign policy appointees in the Trump administration? Or does he chose to pretend that Bannon doesn't have a foreign policy role?

I wonder if Professor Mandelbaum considers it a healthy development that the Trump administration considers itself "at war with the press?" Or does he think it a good thing that the people are better off being misinformed or not informed at all?

And I wonder which lines are going to have to be crossed before Professor Mandelbaum decides that being an apologist for Donald Trump was, at best, naive?

But mostly I wonder if Professor Mandlebaum really believes that character is of no importance in the making of a President.

Michael Mandelbaum lays out a course to navigate the "Trumpscape." Following his compass, "worried and perplexed observers" at home and abroad might be able to make a better "sense of the new administration’s overall performance." Instead of concentrating "too much on discrete events," he recommends "five general guidelines" to pursue.
To start with, it's comprehensible that the beginning of a new era is always messy. The author says it is "a flaw in the US political system" that a new president doesn't have a full cabinet in place at the beginning, as the appointment of the nominees needs to be confirmed by Congress. Only time can tell whether the "Trump administration will settle down and settle in," given his temperament and his passion for firing people in his reality TV show - The Apprentice.
Another indicator for Trump's performance is his foreign policy, where presidents have "much wider latitude" in dealing with other countries than "they do in steering domestic affairs" due to the checks and balances defined by the Constitution. Fortunately he is surrounded by Defence Secretary, James Mattis and State Secretary, Rex Tillerson - both known for the sobriety and experience. As Trump has not distanced himself from his personal interests, he will also be mindful of his own business empire in dealing with foreign heads-of-state. For now he wouldn't upend "70 years" of American tradition in foreign policy.
The author says, the third guideline is to keep an eye on the opposition - the public, mainstream media, the "weak, demoralized, and divided" Democrats. None of them would pose an existential threat to Trump's presidency, because he cultivates a personality cult and relies solely on his diehard supporters to survive politically. But the "formidable" forces hail from "different quarters" - Congressional Republicans, many of whom can't stand him. Business leaders may be another bunch of players, who could "block any policies" that would harm the economy.
The fourth message the author wants to send is that America will survive Trump's presidency, thanks to its deeply-rooted commitment to Democracy. Is he so sure, when he says, mainstream presse's "capacity to stymie Trump is limited, because it lacks credibility outside of the coastal states and large metropolitan areas where people already oppose him?" In fact surveys in recent years show that many Americans are no longer ready to defend democracy. In one conducted by Public Policy Polling, when asked to rate on a scale of 1 to 10 how “essential” it is for them “to live in a democracy,” 72% of Americans born before World War II check “10” - the highest value.
But, the millennial generation born after 1980 “has grown much more indifferent.” Less than 1 in 3 hold a similar belief about the importance of democracy. While they may be liberal in their policy preferences, they have come of age in a time of political paralysis in democratic institutions, declining civility in debates, and most alarmingly an increased anxiety about economic security. As the country is "deeply divided," Americans can no longer take for granted, that their fellow citizens will "remain committed to the central tenets of democracy: free, fair, and regular elections and the protection of political, religious, and economic liberty." The next president will face a daunting task of unifying the country Trump has divided.
Last not least is the question whether the Trump cabinet will be “normal.” The author offers his take: "A normal president pursues predictable policies that are generally supported by those who voted for him, and opposed by those who did not. Trump’s cabinet and Supreme Court nominations fit this description. An administration operating outside the bounds of normality will pursue policies that even its supporters and well-wishers oppose, and which could do serious damage to the country, and the world generally." Clearly, Trump is a departure from normal. He knows it's not policies that count, but attitudes, and he is a divisive figure.

Bromides from a conservative who neglects to consider the effects of gerrymandering, an uninformed electorate, religious intolerance, racial bigotry, ignorance, poverty, economic injustice, and self-dealing by the leadership class. Trump is no French Revolution.

Navigating the Trumpscape for The Fortunate
This is at best a reasonable lens for a white male of means to judge the Trump presidency. I suspect a different lens would be required for any type of minority in the US, crudely and dismissively broken into two categories by this administration: “Mexicans” and “Muslims” One a group largely made of criminals and the other terrorists.

It is also disingenuous to try and pin this level of incompetence on missing cabinet members and staff without at least also exploring the measure of the president as a man. A “Messy Start”or “missteps”is hardly the equivalent of a full press marketing offensive featuring hate, fear, ignorance, and misinformation.

Also, as part of Trumps America personally secure from the direct personal effects of domestic policy and based on Mr. Mandelbaum expertise it makes sense to focus on foreign policy. I however believe Trump’s domestic policies are equally likely to severely harm the united states. Would you categorize Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) or Betsy DeVos as an appointee inspiring confidence?
If America only supports the central tenets of democracy: free, fair, and regular elections and the protection of political, religious, and economic liberty for some of its people - do they really support it at all? I agree that America in 2017 is deeply divided, I think it optimistic to assume these divisions wont widen.

On foreign policy, at least, Trump's return to "experience" so far means going to Bush-era Neocon's. Obama (and Clinton's) foreign policy did not depart from that except at the margins (e.g., Iran) - despite fresh faces. Trump is showing signs of a firm retrenchment of Bush-era naivete and careless assertiveness. We'll see, but it's not looking good at all.

Also this comes now without any of cosmetic benefits of Obama. The first freedom-fries era didn't see too many immediate consequences, as the entire world was sort-of shocked and unprepared and in disbelief. That is no longer the case.

Domestically, we're looking at crony corporatism. A public investment program(deficit spending if you like) could potentially become a big positive if done right. But otherwise, i'm expecting more deregulation and power giveaways from the public to concentrated-wealth, planting the seeds of future economic-financial wreckage for Trump's successor.

Too soon to say is a good attitude though. There's a long way to go, lets not burn out all our powers of reaction in the first month.

The main concern always has to be the lack of opposition to any incumbent, whatever their flavour. As such whatever form opposition comes in it is healthy as it forms debate and presses policy to come under scrutiny and be justified. I have yet to see any problem in the US. The UK however is a different proposition because domestically there is totally ineffectual token opposition, and the main opposition to the more wayward ideas, the EU, is being dispensed with. Far too many are getting all Thespian about Trump, indeed the lady doth protest too much methinks. In terms of discourse the US looks pretty healthy

Trump has the divine forces on his side, the ones that made him rich and keep the wheels turning. The author is correct, it is most dangerous to have a vaccum during any transitory (handing over) phase and yet this is US democracy. He survived and won a very bruising election campaign, he will survive what is to come, there are many checks and balances in the US political / judicial systems to keep any politician from messing about.

Perfectly sensible. Congratulations to Project Syndicate for publishing this rare piece of sanity.

I loved Obama, first Luo to become President- albeit of the U.S, not Kenya- but have to agree with the Professor's verdict- ' the new administration’s ability to maintain continuity and international stability will depend on it not following the example set by its predecessor. During Barack Obama’s presidency, senior officials were marginalized, and foreign policy was generally determined by an inexperienced president and his even less experienced young White House acolytes.'